10 months ago
India's New Data Law Sparks Fears of Crippling Journalism and Censorship
Imagine India has a new rule about protecting people's personal information online, called the DPDP Act.
Some people who work in news, like journalists, are worried about this new rule.
They think it might let the government check their work too much, almost like censoring them, which would be like going back to a time when the government controlled what people could say and write.
They are also afraid that the government could force them to tell who gave them secret information, and without protection, people might stop sharing important tips with reporters.
There are also very big fines that could shut down smaller news companies.
Even rules about protecting kids' information could make it hard for reporters to cover important stories quickly.
Many countries have special rules to protect journalists, but India's new law doesn't seem to have that, making reporters and media groups worried about their jobs and the public's right to know.
Journalist bodies express fears that India's new Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) and its rules pose a threat to press freedom and could lead to censorship.
Concerns exist that sweeping powers granted to the government and the Data Protection Board may compel journalists to reveal their confidential sources, essential for investigative reporting.
High penalties, potentially reaching up to Rs 500 crore, could financially cripple smaller newsrooms and individual journalists.
Rules regarding the processing of children's data are seen as a potential obstacle to real-time reporting on sensitive issues concerning minors.
Media organizations are advocating for exemptions for journalistic work, drawing parallels to how similar laws in other countries protect the press.
- Who
- Journalist bodies, media organizations, and critics of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) and its rules.
- What
- Concerns that the DPDP Act and its rules threaten freedom of the press, enable censorship, compel disclosure of journalistic sources, and impose severe penalties that could cripple newsrooms.
- Where
- India.
- When
- Following the release of drafted rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
- Why
- Journalist groups argue that provisions within the Act and its rules grant sweeping powers to the government and Data Protection Board, potentially undermining journalistic independence and the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.
Journalist Bodies and Critics
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
Freedom of the Press
Journalist Bodies and Critics
The Data Protection Act (DPDPA) and its rules pose a threat to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, potentially leading to pre-censorship and recalling the 'dark days of Emergency'.
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
The Act is designed to protect data privacy, and rules are expected to ease implementation rather than create substantive legal problems (implied, as the government's stance is not explicitly detailed).
Disclosure of Sources
Journalist Bodies and Critics
Sweeping powers granted to the government and the Data Protection Board (DPB) to demand data could be misused to unmask confidential sources, which is crucial for investigative journalism and whistleblowers.
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
The Act grants powers to the DPB and Central Government to call for 'any data, book, document...' which implies a mechanism for information gathering.
Penalties and Small Newsrooms
Journalist Bodies and Critics
Penalties of up to Rs 250-500 crore can 'kill' smaller newsrooms and individuals engaged in journalistic activity, creating a chilling effect on reporting.
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
The DPDP Board is directed to consider 'nature, gravity and duration' of the breach when deciding penalties.
Child Data Consent
Journalist Bodies and Critics
Draft Rule 10(1) forcing age-verified parental consent for child data processing makes real-time reporting on minors difficult for journalists.
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
Rules are expected to help ease difficulties in understanding and implementation of the law (general statement, not specific to this rule).
Blocking of News Sites
Journalist Bodies and Critics
Journalist bodies fear repeated non-compliance could lead to news site blocking under the IT Act or DPDPA, and question if prior judicial authorization will be sought.
Government/Data Protection Board (Implied)
Section 37 of the DPDPA allows for blocking for data-protection reasons, and Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Central Government to block information/content.
Key facts
- Law in Question
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023, and its drafted rules.
- Key Concerns Raised
- Threats to freedom of press, pre-censorship, mandatory disclosure of sources, heavy penalties, and challenges in reporting on minors.
- Potential Penalties
- Up to Rs 250 crore, potentially up to Rs 500 crore for individuals or entities.
- Governing Body
- Data Protection Board (DPB) appointed by the government.
- International Comparison
- Journalists are typically exempted from such laws in other countries.
- Advocacy Groups
- Press Club of India (PCI), Indian Women Press Corps (IWPC), and 21 other media organizations.
- Ministry Involved
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTy).
Quotes
Journalist body
A journalist body raising concerns about the DPDP Act.
“Repeated non-compliance can ultimately attract blocking under the IT Act, read with Section 37 DPDPA (blocking for data-protection reasons). Will MEITY commit to seeking prior judicial authorisation before any news site is disabled?”
thehansindia.com
“Journalists can forget public interest reporting and kill small newsrooms. What is the quantifiable threshold of non-compliances before blocking action is initiated?”
thehansindia.com
Gautam Lahiri
President of the Press Club of India (PCI)
“Worldwide, such laws exempt journalists, and our endeavour is also to ensure that this Act also exempts the professional work of journalists. We are hoping to seek an appointment with the minister concerned for a meeting at the earliest to take forward the joint decisions taken at the open meeting on the matter.”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Tells Lawyer to Seek Video Takedown First
J&K Crime Branch Secures Rs 4.50 Crore Refund for Depositors
Bengaluru Woman Alleges Extortion, Threats Over Obscene Photos
Three Arrested Over Fake Ayurvedic Medicine Firm in Bareilly
Fake CBI Officers Dupe Ghatkopar Senior Citizen ₹7.7 Lakh
